So, the other day I saw this magazine ad for Garnier:
My initial thought was, "That woman's nose is a little too pointy to be a model's" followed shortly by, "what the fuck, is that Tina Fey?" Am I the only one who finds it a little hard to believe that Tina Fey would look into the mirror at her newly-dyed hair and say "This color is CRAZY-GORGEOUS!"? For reference, this is the same woman who printed multiple pictures of herself in her million + copies sold book looking somewhat like this:
Crazy-gorgeous.
Luckily, I was able to turn the page to prevent that subversive image from fully searing itself into my retinas (magazine, not mullet). The distressing nightmare-fantasy of Tina tossing her hair while twittering about its insane levels of beauty was momentarily suppressed, until merely days later when I saw the live-action version of the print ad. Here's the clip:
It lures you in - at first we see Liz-Lemon-Tina who we know and love, rocking the glasses and even a slightly-messy pony. But then we see this, an unforgettable travesty of fashion for anyone who is not in a children's pageant:
Yup, she twirls around like that.
I mean you gotta admit, her hair does look shiny and big, and possibly like a wig and/or extensions. And it's completely possible that Tina Fey legitimately is so delighted by Garnier Nutrisse Hazelnut #38 that she feels like doing a little spin-move. But the set, the skirt, the spin-move, the gushing about how AMAZING the product is, is just like pretty much every other hair product commercial I've ever seen. Evidence:
Yeah, that's Sarah Jessica Parker.
In this scenario, if you can subtract SJP from something and substitute Tina Fey, I think you're doing something wrong - not because one is any better than the other, but because they are so different from each other! While Sarah Jessica is known for being fashionable and stylish, and in that sense maybe we can buy the more aesthetic depiction of the stylized apartment, throw pillows, etc., the role of "hair-color-loving woman" in the commercial could just as likely be played by one of the generic models on the box. And in the case of Tina Fey as "hair-color-loving woman," this makes it even more depressingly obvious. It almost seems like they know it - the glimpse of glasses and the "kooky" colored sneakers seem to be a nod to the fact that this isn't just a generic person, but The Tina Fey.
Tina Fey is not this. (Although I do love this.)
That's my problem with this commercial - why did they even hire Tina Fey? Why is Tina Fey in this? I can admit it's disappointing partly cause of my own perceptions that Tina Fey is a comedian, a satirist, clever, pop-culture-referencing, tongue-in-cheek. She wrote and starred in Mom Jeans, one of the most iconic SNL commercial parodies of all time:
Werqqq ladies!
Maybe that's why the Garnier ad falls so flat to me: when Tina Fey seems to just genuinely like and participate in something so fluffy and commercial as a beauty product advertisement, I actually feel genuinely disappointed. There's no prat fall, no mocking. I kind of feel bad for her, like its awkward or even worse, selling out. What up with that?
Footnote: compare to the fabulosity of Jane Krakowski in the following Tropicana Trop50 ad - it acknowledges the absurdity of the glamour and hair-flipping, takes advantage of her pitch-perfect comedic timing, and pays homage to her turn as 30 Rock's Jenna Maroney, pretty much everything the Garnier ad fails to do. Sorry, Tina!
No comments:
Post a Comment